8% Of Women's "Likes" Go To the Top 10% Of Men On Online Dating
03-20-2019, 07:51 PM
^ This is what I was about to say, that is, one of the things. In a nutshell, because of biology, as everything is in life.
First, as for.petes.sake reiterates from Delta, supply and demand, something everyone can understand. But look deeper, we're at a moment in history where supply is high because for the time being, our ancient biological realities are shocked and men haven't been killed by animals, wars, plagues, invading tribes, intra-tribal battles or strife, etc.
High numbers of males isn't suitable for our evolved sex roles: The Stronger Sex rightly identifies that males (in the short term) particularly on a dry spell will drop several SMV points for an easy lay. That confuses uncontrolled sluts to think they are worth something, until it happens several times to them, and then it's too late. Please notice that this is contingent on a society NOT controlling its members, particularly women sexually since they are the gatekeepers. Theoretically a controlled sexual atmosphere can have closer to 50-50 ratios of men to women, though less men is still better for both long term.
What's more, men, being principled and activated by achievement, don't need as much outside stresses or pressures to get better. Getting better is the competitive drive in them because of what naturally comes from that (money, power, sex). Whereas women, without pressures, show a race to the bottom without pressures much more easily and significantly than males. Thus, we go full circle as to why few men in supply will activate women to stay fit, offering femininity and caretaking, and thus become worthwhile partners.
Throw technology in, on top of a surplus of men, and you get an exacerbation of the problems = minimal selection to be any better, AND validation from male orbiters, since so many subpar men are still around they'll do anything to get a sniff. Voila, there you have the 21st century "West".
First, as for.petes.sake reiterates from Delta, supply and demand, something everyone can understand. But look deeper, we're at a moment in history where supply is high because for the time being, our ancient biological realities are shocked and men haven't been killed by animals, wars, plagues, invading tribes, intra-tribal battles or strife, etc.
High numbers of males isn't suitable for our evolved sex roles: The Stronger Sex rightly identifies that males (in the short term) particularly on a dry spell will drop several SMV points for an easy lay. That confuses uncontrolled sluts to think they are worth something, until it happens several times to them, and then it's too late. Please notice that this is contingent on a society NOT controlling its members, particularly women sexually since they are the gatekeepers. Theoretically a controlled sexual atmosphere can have closer to 50-50 ratios of men to women, though less men is still better for both long term.
What's more, men, being principled and activated by achievement, don't need as much outside stresses or pressures to get better. Getting better is the competitive drive in them because of what naturally comes from that (money, power, sex). Whereas women, without pressures, show a race to the bottom without pressures much more easily and significantly than males. Thus, we go full circle as to why few men in supply will activate women to stay fit, offering femininity and caretaking, and thus become worthwhile partners.
Throw technology in, on top of a surplus of men, and you get an exacerbation of the problems = minimal selection to be any better, AND validation from male orbiters, since so many subpar men are still around they'll do anything to get a sniff. Voila, there you have the 21st century "West".